C Zachriat1, P Asbach2, K I Blankenstein3, I Peroz1, F H Blankenstein1. 1. 1 Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 3. 3 Institute of Vegetative Anatomy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated artefacts caused from orthodontic appliances at 1.5-T MRI of the head and neck region and whether the image quality can be improved utilizing the artefact-minimizing sequence WARP. METHODS: In vitro tests were performed by phantom measurements of different orthodontic devices applying different types of MR sequences [echoplanar imaging (EPI), turbo spin echo (TSE) and TSE-WARP, gradient echo (GRE)]. Two independent readers determined after calibration the level of artefacts. Subsequently, the interobserver agreement was calculated. The measurement of artefacts was based on the American Society for Testing Materials Standard F 2119-07. For in vivo imaging, one test person was scanned with an inserted multibracket appliance. The level of artefacts for 27 target regions was evaluated. RESULTS: In vitro: ceramic brackets and ferromagnetic steel brackets produced artefact radii up to 1.12 and 7.40 cm, respectively. WARP reduced these artefacts by an average of 32.7%. The Bland-Altman-Plot indicated that maximum measurement differences of 3 mm have to be expected with two calibrated observers. In vivo: the EPI sequence for brain imaging was not analysable. The TSE sequence of the brain did not demonstrate artefacts except for the nasal cavity. Conversely, the TSE sequence of the cervical spine revealed severe artefacts in the midface region. The GRE sequence appeared to be more susceptible to artefacts than did the TSE sequence. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro measurements allow an estimation of the in vivo artefact size. Orthodontic appliances may often remain intraorally when performing MRI. WARP showed a more significant effect in vitro than in vivo.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated artefacts caused from orthodontic appliances at 1.5-T MRI of the head and neck region and whether the image quality can be improved utilizing the artefact-minimizing sequence WARP. METHODS: In vitro tests were performed by phantom measurements of different orthodontic devices applying different types of MR sequences [echoplanar imaging (EPI), turbo spin echo (TSE) and TSE-WARP, gradient echo (GRE)]. Two independent readers determined after calibration the level of artefacts. Subsequently, the interobserver agreement was calculated. The measurement of artefacts was based on the American Society for Testing Materials Standard F 2119-07. For in vivo imaging, one test person was scanned with an inserted multibracket appliance. The level of artefacts for 27 target regions was evaluated. RESULTS: In vitro: ceramic brackets and ferromagnetic steel brackets produced artefact radii up to 1.12 and 7.40 cm, respectively. WARP reduced these artefacts by an average of 32.7%. The Bland-Altman-Plot indicated that maximum measurement differences of 3 mm have to be expected with two calibrated observers. In vivo: the EPI sequence for brain imaging was not analysable. The TSE sequence of the brain did not demonstrate artefacts except for the nasal cavity. Conversely, the TSE sequence of the cervical spine revealed severe artefacts in the midface region. The GRE sequence appeared to be more susceptible to artefacts than did the TSE sequence. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro measurements allow an estimation of the in vivo artefact size. Orthodontic appliances may often remain intraorally when performing MRI. WARP showed a more significant effect in vitro than in vivo.
Authors: Christina A Chen; Weitian Chen; Stuart B Goodman; Brian A Hargreaves; Kevin M Koch; Wenmaio Lu; Anja C Brau; Christine E Draper; Scott L Delp; Garry E Gold Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Felix H Blankenstein; Patrick Asbach; Florian Beuer; Johannes Glienke; Stefan Mayer; Christine Zachriat Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Christoph Roser; Tim Hilgenfeld; Sinan Sen; Tobias Badrow; Sebastian Zingler; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Christopher J Lux; Alexander Juerchott Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573